A fact from Boaz mastodon and Anderson Mills mastodon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 2,407 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that it took 66 years for an arrowhead found near the Boaz mastodon to be positively identified?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
BlindEagle asserts that this article is a stub of low importance to Wisconsin History. It may be brief, but contains most of the information available on the subject, and is therefore considerbly more than a stub. The only thing holding it back from an A rating, in my opinion, is the lack of a photo. There is a Wisconsin historical marker for the Boaz mastodon, so the organization that places the markers regards the Boaz mastodon of importance to Wisconsin history. Bootboy41 (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's not a stub, but is very far from B class. B class articles contain a thorough amount of information on the topic and this article is brief. Even a C class article should have more information than this. If this is truly mid importance, then this isn't a C class article. I have reassessed. I'm torn between assessing the importance as low or mid class, so I'll default to keeping as mid. Royalbroil13:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
